One advantage of physical books over digital books... your real book has no battery that can go flat, whilst you are reading on your Kindle.  Kindle is way more cheaper though, truth be told. You can have hundreds of books, way cheaper. However, as a physical book addict, I agree that the aesthetics of a good book are priceless! |
|
|
|
Αφού λοιπόν η συζήτηση έχει πάει σε προσωπικό επίπεδο, να ξεκαθαρίσουμε κάτι: Δε γνωριζόμαστε. Δε σε ξέρω, ούτε εσένα ούτε κανέναν από το Greek board. Ίσως κάποιοι νομίζετε ότι με ξέρετε, αλλά δε με έχετε γνωρίσει στην πραγματική ζωή για να έχετε μια ακριβή εικόνα. Έχω κάνει πολλούς ισχυρισμούς περί των τεχνικών του Bitcoin, και θα έπρεπε να βασιστείς σε αυτούς. Όχι στον χαρακτήρα που μαντεύεις ότι έχω στη ζωή μου. Το ξεκαθάρισα αρκετά αυτό; Πάμε άλλη μία: Αν εσύ θες να με πείσεις ότι είμαι τεχνικά λάθος, πρέπει να απαντάς με τεχνικές λεπτομέρειες. Όχι με επίκληση στο συναίσθημα. Το να λες λοιπόν ότι δεν μπαίνω στον κόπο να ψάξω αν αυτά που λέω καν στέκουν κι ότι τρώω αμάσητη πληροφορία, κομμένα. Αυτά που λέω, τα έχω ψάξει. Όχι, δεν έχω ψάξει να δω τι δουλειά έκανε ο Craig πριν 20 χρόνια, ή δεν ξέρω εγώ τι, για τον απλούστατο λόγο ότι μου φτάνουν οι αποδείξεις που υποστηρίζουν ότι ο άνθρωπος είναι παθητικός ψεύτης. Με τέτοια στοιχεία, όχι απλά δε θα μου άλλαζε η γνώμη αν παρουσίαζε μια (πλαστογραφημένη) απόδειξη ότι αγόρασε το bitcoin.org. Ούτε καν με υπογεγραμμένο μήνυμα από τα πρώτα blocks δε θα τον πίστευα. Όσον αφορά τα full nodes, lightning, 1MB block size, τα έχω πει χιλιάδες φόρες τώρα. Αν δεν σ' αρέσουν τα πράγματα έτσι όπως έχουν, μπορείς να πας σε ένα άλλο δίκτυο. Απλό. Δε πιστευω πως ο Craig ειναι ο satoshi , ποσες φορες θα στο πω αυτο . Ελπιζω καποτε να αρχισεις να καταλαβαινεις τι σημαινουν οι λεξεις και τα νουμερα . 95% δεν εχει καμμια σχεση με το 100% . Τώρα σοβαρά, μας κάνεις πλάκα; Έχεις χάσει κάποιο στοίχημα να τρολλάρεις σε διαδικτυακό φόρουμ; Δεν εξηγείται αυτό.
Edit: Τους 12 ένορκους τους έχω δει. Και ναι, είναι απ' τις καλύτερες ταινίες. Αλλά δεν καταλαβαίνω που κολλάει με το θέμα. |
|
|
|
Θεωρεις πως το bitcoin εχει σχεση μονο με τον κωδικα και εκει ειναι που χανεις το παιχνιδι . Για να χρησιμοποιησω ενα αυτοκινητο ή ενα αεροπλανο δε σημαινει πως θα καθισω να διαβασω πως δουλευει το καθε κομματι του . Για να χρησιμοποιήσεις ένα αυτοκίνητο δε χρειάζεται να γνωρίζεις την κάθε τεχνική λεπτομέρεια. Για να πείσεις όμως κάποιον πως το μοντέλο Α είναι καλύτερο απ' το μοντέλο Β χρειάζεται να γνωρίζεις την κάθε λεπτομέρεια. Εσύ έρχεσαι εδώ και προσπαθείς να πείσεις ανθρώπους ότι είναι τεχνικά λανθασμένοι. Παράλληλα μας λες ότι σημασία δεν έχουν οι τεχνικές λεπτομέρειες.
Δυστυχώς δεν μπορώ να συμμετέχω σε μια ακόμη τέτοια συζήτηση με τα ίδια χιλιοειπωμένα θέματα. Το ότι δε λες να παραδεχτείς πως μπορεί να είσαι τεχνικά λάθος, πως είσαι υπέρ μιας Οργουελιστικής πραγματικότητας, και το γεγονός πως πιστεύεις ότι ο Craig είναι ο Satoshi μετά από όλα όσα έχουν ειπωθεί, μου δίνει την εντύπωση πως δεν έχεις έρθει με καλόβουλες προθέσεις. Δεν νομίζω πως έχουμε κάτι άλλο να πούμε. |
|
|
|
Question: could CPFP lead to exploitation, eg. not including transaction fees if they know the parent will be forced to pay those fees if they ever want to see their money? If the parent pays 1 sat/vb, and the equally-sized child pays 10 sat/vb, then both as a whole pay the average, 5.5 sat/vb. The child has to take into account the parent's transaction size, and that's why CPFP might be expensive sometimes. If the parent is extremely large in size, as a big consolidation, then the child has to account that. The formula is demonstrated in here by hosseinimr93: SA = Size of the unconfirmed transaction
SB = Size of the new transaction (the transaction you will make for doing CPFP)
fA = The fee rate used for the unconfirmed transaction.
fB = The fee rate you should use for the new transaction.
f = the fee rate required for a fast confirmation.
fB = (f*(SA+SB) - SA*fA) / SB
Both transactions' fee rate is: f = (fB*SB + fA*SB)/(SA + SB). You can try playing with it in this python program: fA, fB = PARENT_FEE_RATE, CHILD_FEE_RATE
sA, sB = PARENT_SIZE, CHILD_SIZE
f = (fB*sB + fA*sA)/(sA + sB)
print(f)
You can change PARENT_SIZE, CHILD_SIZE, PARENT_FEE_RATE, CHILD_FEE_RATE to your values. |
|
|
|
Note that scalar 1, 2 and 4 result in different points than above points but they do behave similar when working with 3. Why is that? Because they are all mathematically related. Given these, #3 - #4 = #1 + #2 - (#1 - #2) = #1 + #2 - #1 + #2 = 2 * #2. So, yes, if you subtract #4 from #3, you get double #2. |
|
|
|
- Satoshi apparently didn't know about B-Money at the time Adam asked them about it. Perhaps, it was on purpose. That doesn't feel right, because if Satoshi really wanted to disconnect himself from the name "Wei Dai", he wouldn't have used it as the very first reference of the whitepaper. Perhaps, he really didn't know it. I mean, isn't it possible? I know. That Wei Dai text looks unusually familiar, but does it contain incredible coincidences? I wouldn't say so. There's more than a reasonable doubt to me. |
|
|
|
Does your book store have a website for us to search books? Do you resell books? Do you sell second-hand only? Do you sell academic books? I'd be great if we had the option to purchase ourselves books using Bitcoin. At the moment, there is no reputable book seller that I'm aware of. Only Amazon via gift cards, but this is too limiting and expensive. I'm glad you got into Bitcoin, and welcome to Bitcointalk!  |
|
|
|
A ranking system should reflect competence, integrity and credibility of those it is bestowed upon. We have reputation and common sense for that. If an account has 1000 merits and is 7+ years old, then it is clear their merits were airdropped. You can also look on the merits that were earned in the last few months, to get a better picture. Ranks exist for discouraging shitposting. Not for certifying competence. |
|
|
|
Για μένα το τέλειο Linux distro ήταν το arch. Δεν με έχει πείσει πως θα με βοηθήσει, ή τουλάχιστον πως το steep learning curve του αξίζει να καείς μέχρι να το μάθεις. Είχα διαβάσει πως το να έχεις custom OS βοηθάει σε εφαρμογές μηχανικής μάθησης, αλλά είναι εκτός του πεδίου μου αυτή τη στιγμή, και δε μπορώ να το επιβεβαιώσω. Ίδια άποψη έχω και για επεξεργαστές κειμένου όπως το vim. Δεν έχω πειστεί πως χρειάζεται όταν έχουμε GUI όπως αυτό του VSCode. Νομίζω πως είχα πει στο παρελθόν ότι η αναλογία με τα Linux δεν είναι καλή, αλλά τελικά μου φαίνεται έγκυρη. Κι όχι μόνο για Linux, γενικά για λειτουργικό. Ο καθένας έχει προτεραιότητες (ένας gamer π.χ., προτιμάει Windows). Παρομοίως ισχύει και με τα cryptos, απλά είναι ολοφάνερο ποια αξίζουν και ποια όχι. |
|
|
|
Παραλληλα , στο απεναντι στρατοπεδο ... στρατόπεδο; Η αποκέντρωση δεν έχει ούτε εθνικότητα ούτε σύνορα. Το βλέπεις σαν έναν πόλεμο, ο οποίος δεν υπάρχει. Αυτό που έχουμε φτιάξει είναι ένα σύνολο από επιλογές. Όλα αυτά τα δίκτυα που έχουμε στη διάθεσή μας (Bitcoin, Monero, Bitcoin Cash, Litecoin κλπ.) δεν είναι ούτε κτήμα σου, ούτε είσαι εσύ για αυτά. Είναι κουτό να το βλέπεις μέχρι και σαν διαγωνισμό για το ποιο είναι "καλύτερο". Καθένα από αυτά εξυπηρετεί διαφορετικές μερίδες ανθρώπων, τα ενδιαφέροντα των οποίων κάποιες φορές συγκλίνουν κι άλλες αποκλίνουν. Αντί για να έχεις το θράσος και την έλλειψη ταπεινοφροσύνης, με τέτοια τεχνική ανικανότητα, να αποκαλείς όλους τους Bitcoiners πρόβατα, θα ήταν προτιμότερο να μελετούσες λίγο παραπάνω για αυτό που έχεις στα χέρια σου; Εκτός κι αν πιστεύεις ότι γνωρίζεις τεχνικά καλύτερα τα πάντα από όλους μας, που στη συγκεκριμένη περίπτωση θα ήσουν ψευδαισθητικός... |
|
|
|
Sorry for the delay, I hadn't noticed your reply. hmmmm not the watch key... it's what? I'm not familiar with that term. Maybe it's made-up from Binance. In Monero, you have a view key to check how much funds you have. TxID (  ) That's the transaction ID, just as in Bitcoin. It does not reveal sensitive information. TX key ( ) (i suppose this is the private ones) TX key is used to prove a payment. Read in here: https://www.getmonero.org/resources/user-guides/prove-payment.html. for view key is different i already understand that i think, it's something about viewing full monero account right? just to see) It's about viewing the balance of your Monero account. so does they also make new sending addr? or just receive addr? The individual is responsible for selecting new receiving addresses each time, but even if they reuse receiving sub-addresses, the senders (if different each time) cannot tell if they are reused. However, I'm not entirely sure I understand your question, so I'll kindly ask you to formulate it better. |
|
|
|
And here I am, with not even a full four years in the forum!  I'd highly recommend you to read a little bit of what has changed since then. You might feel as if you've been in a comma for a very long time. For example, Multibit is deprecated, absolutely avoid using it. Your best course would be to move to Electrum, as it's probably the only SPV wallet software that has survived since then. It's so much more complicated now. It was prohibitively complicated for non tech savy people 10 years ago but now I'm not surprised people are scared to get involved and opt for easy closed source solutions that ultimately end up in them being rugged. Actually, it's much less complicated now. You simply have to write down a seed phrase. Ten years ago, you'd have to either write down a WIF (which is prone to error) or store a wallet file with fingers crossed for file corruption. |
|
|
|
Ooh, is 'Email #100' referring to that mysterious 2nd ever forum account that nowadays "does not exist"?
I don't think so... Sounds strange for a forum account to have "permissions". Usually, OS users have that, and since it's talking about ssh and Linux, chances are it's a user in the server that was hosting bitcoin.org. Then, in email #103, you can see Satoshi used that to install a file manager: Thanks, that worked, I got File Manager installed with SSH. I also uploaded a few themes into Drupal. I haven't thoroughly gone through all the available themes yet. Reading new Satoshi messages gives me chills. I thought every important email discussion was disclosed already. So basically Sirius was a CS student back then and Satoshi, seeing that Sirius was talented, decided to let him do the website and the FAQ? As I perceive it, Satoshi saw a young man who was thirsty for programming. He must have respected how Sirius recognized Bitcoin from the very beginning. I remember that most people were a little doubtful at first, looking at the mailing lists, forums. That wasn't the case with young Sirius.
So, as it appears out, Sirius was registered under the pseudonym "Trickstern" in an old, anarchist forum called "anti-state.com". Oh boy, conspiracy theories on Satoshi's identity will continue. |
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin is not trying to replace the status quo of financial transactions. It kinda began with that motto, but scaling issues didn't take long time to appear.
What Bitcoin is trying to replace, at least from my perspective, is a sociopolitically vulnerable monetary system whereas the state intervenes and monopolizes in money creation. In this new monetary system, people's money is not de-valuated due to a few senators' decisions. It does not belong to a government, and is fully transparent.
That's what Bitcoin trying to replace. (And of course, peer-to-peer cash via the Internet rocks!)
|
|
|
|
DeFi exchanges, as you call them, don’t take custody of user’s funds Can you prove it? From my experience with DeFi, the software is closed-source. You can export private keys and the like, but you can't know with certainty if another entity holds your keys as well. And in my opinion, if another entity holds my keys, it isn't self-custodial, regardless of what I do. Mixers are getting outlawed, and it's not surprising because what they do is basically money laundering (in a sense that the procedure is literally built to hide the origins of money, both legit and not legit money). If someone is that much into privacy that doesn't care for Bitcoin's pseudonymity, then like others said, there are private coins for that. Right, as if you don't mix your coins with other people's coins in private coins, or as if private coins aren't "literally built" to hide the origins of money (both "legit" and "not legit")! |
|
|
|
This is most certainly an XY problem. Why would you want any other software than Electrum itself to verify that the private keys from Electrum seed phrases can be properly recovered? I know that. I'm doing some tests, and to complete my tests, I need a tool similar to iancoleman to generate p2tr addresses.
Electrum does not include Taproot address generation, so I'd recommend you be careful and make a better question, so we can understand what you're trying to accomplish. |
|
|
|
|
This might be a dumb question, but can't you just deposit the required amount, so that you can withdraw everything later? Without bets.
|
|
|
|
Because possibility of intentionally exclude transaction due to other reason than tx fee rate. For example, Antpool used to exclude SegWit TX while some politician have idea to force pool exclude certain transaction. Antpool can right as well choose to censor legacy transactions, but that does not prevent the Bitcoin user from sending and receiving to segwit or legacy. Correct me if I'm wrong, but every attempt to censor a particular group of transactions by a pool has proved to be a failure, and wasted money. And that's because whatever is dumped by one pool is selected by another. Therefore, I think it is wrong to refer to the network as permission-requiring, since censorship resistance isn't merely a principle, but a side effect of the game theory. As long as honest miners overthrow malicious, hereby do not intentionally reorg the chain to reverse transactions, the system is censorship resistant. |
|
|
|
Here you go. - Address A sends 150,000 sat to - bc1qgl99gywe9evv9skegm8quxj8788949up5nzetq. - Then, the 150,000 sat input is used in an apparent WabiSabi coinjoin transaction in here. - The given coinjoin creates a 65,536 sat output (among all) in address - bc1pum3g2v26v5gp7er5kvsunw7fxydk0tq643q0t3kxy5q89ekyxtasqyztm5. - That is then consolidated with another two, to create the 142,043 sat UTXO in address B. I'm not quite sure what you're trying to accomplish, though. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
